Man-made Logic

AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
edited February 2007 in A Moving Train
We've had plenty of debates on this forum about the nature of the universe. There are surprisingly a lot of atheists on this board, but still an overwhelming number of theists. The typical debates ends with the theist's argument "We cannot understand God with man-made logic."

Instead of stating again the overstated rebuttle "that's just a cop-out". I intend to prove through theism that logic is not manufactured by men.

Let us first define the terms "Man-made" and "God-given"

Man-made
Made by humans rather than occurring in nature; synthetic: man-made fibers; a manmade lake.

God-given
Though I have found no source online for the definition of this term. I feel it is fairly straight forward. A "God-given" right as it's called is the moral rights to which we as a culture acknowledge en-masse. Whereas a "God-given" ability is typically considered a talent or an innate ability. An ability we are born with.

Logic is an innate ability, for without logic innately instilled in us we would only react based on hardcoded behaviors. The evidence that newborns are logical beings is undeniable. In-fact, newborns experience very little in terms of emotions or feelings. The majority of their time is spent discovering the logical system of reality and recognizing logical patterns. Logic is by no means something we have created, rather an innate ability, and perhaps the only innate mental power we possess to discover our surroundings. It is by definition of theism a God-given ability.

Discuss
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1345

Comments

  • Ahnimus wrote:
    Logic is an innate ability, for without logic innately instilled in us we would only react based on hardcoded behaviors. The evidence that newborns are logical beings is undeniable. In-fact, newborns experience very little in terms of emotions or feelings. The majority of their time is spent discovering the logical system of reality and recognizing logical patterns. Logic is by no means something we have created, rather an innate ability, and perhaps the only innate mental power we possess to discover our surroundings. It is by definition of theism a God-given ability.

    Discuss

    I think it becomes very difficult to use logic to argue for or against the existence of god if you decide from the outset that logic is a god-given ability. . .
    It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!

    -C Addison
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    Scubascott wrote:
    I think it becomes very difficult to use logic to argue for or against the existence of god if you decide from the outset that logic is a god-given ability. . .

    I don't think it is, I think it's an evolution-given ability. But in order to refute the claim that it's a man-made thing, I need to use theist's terms. Or at least I find it's easier to talk to religious people using their terms, or terms they are familiar with. Obviously not many will know what a neonate is, or what tabula rasa means. Because they've probably never opened up a science book.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Ahnimus wrote:
    I don't think it is, I think it's an evolution-given ability. But in order to refute the claim that it's a man-made thing, I need to use theist's terms. Or at least I find it's easier to talk to religious people using their terms, or terms they are familiar with. Obviously not many will know what a neonate is, or what tabula rasa means. Because they've probably never opened up a science book.

    I had to google tabula rasa.
    It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!

    -C Addison
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    Scubascott wrote:
    I had to google tabula rasa.

    Eek, it's hard to find info on it. It's the theory that the mind is a "blank slate" until it's environment influences it. It's the most accepted theory in the study of the mind. The other theories are Original Sin, which is the Christian view taken from Psalm 51:5. Which implies that we are all born with the desire to sin and we need religion to teach us otherwise. In opposition to Original Sin there is the theory of Innate Goodness which assumes that all children are born free of sin, and rather an innate desire to do Good.

    Personally I go with tabula rasa, because the other theories are just ridiculous, IMO.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    Here is an informative illustration of human adolescent brain development.
    http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2006/0223/20060223_025751_Juvenile_Teen-brain-develop.gif
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Ahnimus wrote:
    Here is an informative illustration of human adolescent brain development.
    http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2006/0223/20060223_025751_Juvenile_Teen-brain-develop.gif
    Mine must still be yellow then...all that weed ya know
  • Ahnimus wrote:
    Eek, it's hard to find info on it. It's the theory that the mind is a "blank slate" until it's environment influences it. It's the most accepted theory in the study of the mind. The other theories are Original Sin, which is the Christian view taken from Psalm 51:5. Which implies that we are all born with the desire to sin and we need religion to teach us otherwise. In opposition to Original Sin there is the theory of Innate Goodness which assumes that all children are born free of sin, and rather an innate desire to do Good.

    Personally I go with tabula rasa, because the other theories are just ridiculous, IMO.

    Maybe yes on morality. Good and evil are far too simplistic. Morality is taught. But the human brain and body are ruled by chemicals. A little too much of one, a little less of another really is what determines behavior.
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    Mine must still be yellow then...all that weed ya know

    THC doesn't retard brain development like that. If your mother smoked weed while you were in the prenatal stages, then it may have caused low birth-weight, but doubt it would affect your brain development.

    Although, if you don't use your brain, you will lack functionality.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    Maybe yes on morality. Good and evil are far too simplistic. Morality is taught. But the human brain and body are ruled by chemicals. A little too much of one, a little less of another really is what determines behavior.

    While I agree, I think that's a bit oversimplified. There is significant evidence suggesting that while our thoughts are products of chemicals, our chemicals are also guided by our thoughts. It's the kind of thing, like, if you eat chocolate all the time, you get to crave it more often. Except in terms of thoughts, it's a bit more complicated, but that's basically it. Like, in terms of Cognitive Dissonance, you have two opposing thoughts, and in those circumstances the "winner" is usually the most desirable and ultimately strengthens the associated chemical bond and neural engrams.

    Or when you get into discussing talents. Most things like Michael Jordon's ability to play basketball, is referred to as talent, but it's really a skill. Unless by talent, skill is meant. But talent to me, refers to an innate ability, that can be possible with the presence of neurological disorders like ADHD. A person with ADHD may have a "talent" for hands-on learning. But in those terms, a talent is a bad thing, because it comes from a disorder which impedes some other ability, in this case, the ability to concentrate.

    So, i find it's just easier to assume for all intents and purposes that the newborns mind is blank and subject to influence. Unless the child's behavior suggests otherwise, as is the case with ADHD or something like Aphasia. But I think a newborn's innocence has been mistaken for Innate Goodness and their Curiosity for Original Sin.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Ahnimus wrote:
    While I agree, I think that's a bit oversimplified. There is significant evidence suggesting that while our thoughts are products of chemicals, our chemicals are also guided by our thoughts. It's the kind of thing, like, if you eat chocolate all the time, you get to crave it more often. Except in terms of thoughts, it's a bit more complicated, but that's basically it. Like, in terms of Cognitive Dissonance, you have two opposing thoughts, and in those circumstances the "winner" is usually the most desirable and ultimately strengthens the associated chemical bond and neural engrams.

    Or when you get into discussing talents. Most things like Michael Jordon's ability to play basketball, is referred to as talent, but it's really a skill. Unless by talent, skill is meant. But talent to me, refers to an innate ability, that can be possible with the presence of neurological disorders like ADHD. A person with ADHD may have a "talent" for hands-on learning. But in those terms, a talent is a bad thing, because it comes from a disorder which impedes some other ability, in this case, the ability to concentrate.

    So, i find it's just easier to assume for all intents and purposes that the newborns mind is blank and subject to influence. Unless the child's behavior suggests otherwise, as is the case with ADHD or something like Aphasia. But I think a newborn's innocence has been mistaken for Innate Goodness and their Curiosity for Original Sin.

    how do you account for addiction then? certainly that has a pre-determined genetic and chemical component. that addiction can then lead to destructive or "bad" behavior later in life....
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    how do you account for addiction then? certainly that has a pre-determined genetic and chemical component. that addiction can then lead to destructive or "bad" behavior later in life....

    All behavior is addiction. We tend to separate "habit" from "addiction" by suggesting that "addiction" is only caused by external chemical influence. However, all of our behaviors are acted because of the internal chemical rewards associated with them. Craving chocolate is no more than a whitdrawal from the chemical reaction produced by eating chocolate.

    So, a newborn child isn't going to be addicted to theft or crack cocaine because it's never experienced either and in terms of crime like theft, it has to do with learned behavior. Certainly a newborn is going to carry the self-servant thought model that we all share. But that isn't exactly sinful in my opinion.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Ahnimus wrote:
    All behavior is addiction. We tend to separate "habit" from "addiction" by suggesting that "addiction" is only caused by external chemical influence. However, all of our behaviors are acted because of the internal chemical rewards associated with them. Craving chocolate is no more than a whitdrawal from the chemical reaction produced by eating chocolate.

    So, a newborn child isn't going to be addicted to theft or crack cocaine because it's never experienced either and in terms of crime like theft, it has to do with learned behavior. Certainly a newborn is going to carry the self-servant thought model that we all share. But that isn't exactly sinful in my opinion.
    point
  • Ahnimus wrote:
    Eek, it's hard to find info on it. It's the theory that the mind is a "blank slate" until it's environment influences it. It's the most accepted theory in the study of the mind.

    Yeah I got that bit. Didn't really get into the details though. Does this idea extand as far as things like intelligence, aptitude for music etc? I think the evidence that certain capacities of our brains are genetically pre-determined is pretty overwhelming nowdays. We may never reach those capacities if not given the oppurtunity in our lives, but there are limits imposed by our genes nonetheless.
    It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!

    -C Addison
  • .... :(
    Rarghstarfarian.
  • I just pmed you.
    :)
    Rarghstarfarian.
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    Scubascott wrote:
    Yeah I got that bit. Didn't really get into the details though. Does this idea extand as far as things like intelligence, aptitude for music etc? I think the evidence that certain capacities of our brains are genetically pre-determined is pretty overwhelming nowdays. We may never reach those capacities if not given the oppurtunity in our lives, but there are limits imposed by our genes nonetheless.

    Well, the extent is kind of a belief system. But in practice it doesn't. Genetics give us a map of what we can do, but not what we will. So you are right about that. These theories are more in regards to wether or not we are born good or bad.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560

    Huh?

    It was delivered as a joke, you can't take a joke or what?

    But for your information it was actually some Christian group that studied the effects of prayers on surgery and found the evidence to show that a patient who knows others are praying for them has a more complicated surgery. If they don't know, then there is no change. Even then the change is so small it's basically non existent.

    Why do you get so upset over it? lol

    A bit over-sensitive are we?
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    Wow,
    youre an idiot!

    I'm sorry, but this is just amazing coming from rarghrargh-brownstar, whatever the fuck that means, and I'd like to know what you know about brain, mind and consciousness, or the effects of praying for that matter. The fact that you even pray implies to me your ignorance. Are you upset I didn't use an emoticon on my post? Because when you call someone an idiot you post a smiley face? WTF does that mean? Your too fucking smug, or you are joking, sure doesn't read like a joke. The ignorance just fucking amazes me.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    But if you assume logic is given by God, you're still not ruling out the possibility that it is also LIMITED by God as well.

    After all, individuals all have different levels of logic.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    know1 wrote:
    But if you assume logic is given by God, you're still not ruling out the possibility that it is also LIMITED by God as well.

    After all, individuals all have different levels of logic.

    Were we not created in God's image, and does that not mean by the way that we operate, not the way we appear. Or is this another circumstance where religious logic is picky?
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Were we not created in God's image, and does that not mean by the way that we operate, not the way we appear. Or is this another circumstance where religious logic is picky?

    "image" is pretty subjective. Do all people look exactly alike to you? Do people look generally similar?
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • NMyTreeNMyTree Posts: 2,374
    Deja' vu



    I honsetly believe there is a completely undiscovered science (maybe more than one) that encompasses the spiritual world....the after-life......our "soul's" energy force.

    I have no doubt there is something before and after human life.

    But I don't believe for one minute it has anything to do with any of what is taught, preached, fought-for and shoved down our throats by any of the human-created and human-practiced ........Religions.
  • NMyTree wrote:

    I have no doubt there is something before and after human life.

    Why? What basis do you have for that belief?
    It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!

    -C Addison
  • Where does love fit into it all? I remember reading some National Geo on it and describing the brain and it releasing chemicals to make us feel good/positive/infatuation. Certainly we do some illogical things when we feel love.

    I don't know. I know from our DNA we are not that separate from certain primates yet we are so different. I apologize for not putting it into more scientific terms. Is our ability to use logic the only thing that separates us?
    "She knows there is no success like failure
    And that failure's no success at all."

    "Don't ya think its sometimes wise not to grow up."

    "Cause life ain't nothing but a good groove
    A good mixed tape to put you in the right mood."
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Ahnimus wrote:
    We've had plenty of debates on this forum about the nature of the universe. There are surprisingly a lot of atheists on this board, but still an overwhelming number of theists. The typical debates ends with the theist's argument "We cannot understand God with man-made logic."

    Instead of stating again the overstated rebuttle "that's just a cop-out". I intend to prove through theism that logic is not manufactured by men.

    Let us first define the terms "Man-made" and "God-given"

    Man-made
    Made by humans rather than occurring in nature; synthetic: man-made fibers; a manmade lake.

    God-given
    Though I have found no source online for the definition of this term. I feel it is fairly straight forward. A "God-given" right as it's called is the moral rights to which we as a culture acknowledge en-masse. Whereas a "God-given" ability is typically considered a talent or an innate ability. An ability we are born with.

    Logic is an innate ability, for without logic innately instilled in us we would only react based on hardcoded behaviors. The evidence that newborns are logical beings is undeniable. In-fact, newborns experience very little in terms of emotions or feelings. The majority of their time is spent discovering the logical system of reality and recognizing logical patterns. Logic is by no means something we have created, rather an innate ability, and perhaps the only innate mental power we possess to discover our surroundings. It is by definition of theism a God-given ability.

    Discuss

    What about Time?

    Do humans truly understand the everything there is to know about Time? We measure it, we do, we think we do, we have our perceptions of time with the planets and the stars that we've been observing for many, many a moon, yet, is Time something greater than that? Is Time something beyond what we have not perceived? Yet, we're aware enough to give it a name. Time.
    Very similar to "God", if you ask me. I think to dismiss those who state to believe in "God" is to dismiss a part of all the colors of the human spectrum. It is to deny a part of yourself.

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    gue_barium wrote:
    What about Time?

    Do humans truly understand the everything there is to know about Time? We measure it, we do, we think we do, we have our perceptions of time with the planets and the stars that we've been observing for many, many a moon, yet, is Time something greater than that? Is Time something beyond what we have not perceived? Yet, we're aware enough to give it a name. Time.
    Very similar to "God", if you ask me. I think to dismiss those who state to believe in "God" is to dismiss a part of all the colors of the human spectrum. It is to deny a part of yourself.

    To put this in another perspective, I realize you're trying very hard at this point in your life to simply like yourself. That's an honorable endevour. We all go through it.

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Speaking of endevours, to understand the mysteries of these eons and nothingness before us as humans, and the suggestion that Time could perhaps be at the crux of this situation, like Einstein endevoured....or at least theorized, where are we now? What is Eisntein to us now with this Relative Theory of Time?

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    gue_barium wrote:
    Speaking of endevours, to understand the mysteries of these eons and nothingness before us as humans, and the suggestion that Time could perhaps be at the crux of this situation, like Einstein endevoured....or at least theorized, where are we now? What is Eisntein to us now with this Relative Theory of Time?

    Ahnimus, when he reads this, would have wanted to reply to this with , "He's [Einstein is] dead."
    Of course, that would be avoiding the spirit of the debate. You know, the "spirit", a chemical reaction in the brain.

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • spongersponger Posts: 3,159
    Is our ability to use logic the only thing that separates us?

    According to Dr. Laura, the only thing that separates primates from humans is our ability to use foresight. I think she was being facetious, while at the same time, actually making somewhat of a valid point. But, feel free to take it with a grain of salt. I'm just posting for the sake of posting.
Sign In or Register to comment.